Waihopai Ploughshares Trio Acquitted On Charges

Waihopai Ploughshares Trio Acquitted On All
Charges

POSTSCRIPT: Before the report
below from Bryan Law was published - shortly after 6pm
tonight - the Jury of 11 returned with not-guilty verdicts
for all defendants on all charges. The three defendants had
been charged with intentional damage and entering a property
with the intention to commit a crime.

There was a general
feeling of euphoria in the packed courtroom when the verdict
was announced and Scoop understands a party will be held
tonight in Otaki to celebrate the verdict. Bryan Law's
report which focusses on the Crown's closin submissions
follows.

- The Scoop Editor

Waihopai
Ploughshares Trial - Final Day

At 3.45pm on
Wednesday 17 March 2010 - St Patrick's Day - the jury in
the Waihopai Ploughshares trial retired to consider its
verdict..

Today we have heard closing addresses from the
Prosecutor, Mr Marshall, Defence Counsel Mr Knowles and Mr
Shaw, and self represented defendent Fr Murnane. Then
Judge Harrop summed up and directed the jury. It was an
impressive array of legal talent, and even couched in dry
legal terms the content was moving.

Mr Marshall began by
saying that, for the jury, this was a one issue trial, and
that issue was whether or not the defendants had a genuine
"claim of right". (A claim of right is where an accused
carried out the act they are charged over in the genuine
belief that it was lawful for them to do so. It does not
have to be a correct belief, but it does have to be a
genuine belief).

The facts, he said, were not in dispute.
The accused had given detailed testimony about their
planning, intentions, reasons and actions, and all the
elements of the offence had been established - with the
exception of claim of right.

The accused, he said, claim
to have believed in April 2008 that they had available to
them defences of "necessity" and "defence of others". In
fact those defences were NOT available to them - as the
judge has ruled in this case. So if any claim of right
exists, it is based on a mistake.

To "negative" the claim
of right defence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that their thinking "was not an actual belief, but at
best a hope or expectation".

Here the prosecutor's task
became nebulous, and difficult to fully understand.

What
is the practical difference between a belief that a properly
instructed jury will acquit on the same issues that other
juries have acquitted on, and a hope they will do so?
Anyone experienced in the law knows that anything can happen
- even that a jury is capable of making a, "perverse
verdict", against the facts. So that in some ways the best
one can take into trial is a well grounded
hope.

Nevertheless Mr Marshall did his best to say that
hope was not enough, didn't achieve the requisite threshold,
and that the jury should convict.

Mr Marshall conceded
that Adi Leason, Peter Murnane, and Sam Land were "good
people holding strong and sincere views about the world they
live in, but even good men commit crimes".

He told the
jury not to be distracted by political views that are
irrelevant to the trial. We aren't here to pass judgement
on the US, the GCSB, the war in Iraq, or the lack of
government accountability. We're here to judge the accused
under New Zealand law.

He said the lack of genuine belief
in the lawfulness of their actions can be inferred from the
way the act itself was premeditated, carried out under
cover of darkness, and was known by the defendants that it
would bring their arrest. Mr Marshall said the accused knew
their actions would be controversial. He says that at the
time they would not have believed in an acquittal, but would
have known only that they would have an opportunity - a day
in court.

In a peculiar piece of legal ju-jitsu he turned
the accused's good character against them. "They are all
experienced social justice activists. That is a school of
hard knocks, where you hope for the best, but you know there
will be set-backs". (Therefore they couldn't really
believe in a just outcome from the courts).

And then Mr
Marshall went on to misrepresent the Ploughshares movement
and the testimony of Ciaron O'Reilly.

Mr Marshall seems
unable to understand that the nub of a ploughshares action
is the act of disarmament itself. Enfleshing the prophesy
of Isaiah through direct action in the world has many
consequences - a trail being only one of them, and not the
most important one at that. So when Mr Marshall claims
that "success" is measured by acquittal of criminal charges
he is missing the point.

When he claims that the
occasional or even frequent conviction of activists for
Ploughshares actions negatives their belief in law, he is
wide of the mark.

Nevertheless his job is to negative the
defendants' claim of right, and he gave it his best shot.
Time will tell if he has succeeded. He closed by saying
"If you apply your common sense and logic to these
defendents, there can be no alternative but
conviction".

Which is not a view shared by Mr Knowles, Mr
Shaw, or Fr Murnane.

I don't mean to leave you hanging,
but I'm off to dinner now. Word is that the jury will work
up until 10pm NZ time to reach a verdict, and after that
will re-commence tomorrow. I'm off to dinner, after which
I'll write my report on the Defence closings and the Judge's
comments.

Update: As mentioned in the postscript
above - before this item could be published the Jury
returned with not-guilty verdicts for all defendants on all
charges.

Scoop Citizen Members and ScoopPro Organisations are the lifeblood of Scoop.

20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but your support is essential to keep Scoop thriving. We are building on our offering with new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform - thedig.nz.
Find out more and join us:

ALSO:

In the circumstances, yesterday’s move by Lam to scrap – rather than merely suspend – the hated extradition law that first triggered the protests three months ago, seems like the least she can do. It may also be too little, too late. More>>

The DOC-led draft Biodiversity Strategy seeks a “shared vision.” But there are more values and views around wildlife than there are species. How can we hope to agree on the shape of Aotearoa’s future biota? More>>

We are in a moment of existential peril, with interconnected climate and biodiversity crises converging on a global scale to drive most life on Earth to the brink of extinction… These massive challenges can, however, be reframed as a once in a lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change how humanity relates to nature and to each other. Read on The Dig>>